liliann_databasefandomcom-20200214-history
Max Weber
Key points in biography= Weber was born in Germany in 1864. Upon completing his law studies he worked as a barrister and earned a PhD in economic and legal history in 1889. Throughout his entire life, Weber was torn between his father and his mother. While he admired the piety of his mother and loathed her passivity, he admired the intellectual abilities of his father and despised the abusive treatment he dealt his mother. In 1893 Weber married Marianne Schnitger, who is today also among the most renowned feminists, intellectuals and sociologists of her time. The two of them led an egalitarian marriage in the form of a partnership and worked together on intellectual projects. In 1869 Weber began his academic career as Chair of Economics at the University of Heidelberg. After experiencing a nervous breakdown upon the death of his father, Weber would be plagued by insomnia and anxiety throughout his entire life. In 1904 Weber traveled to the US and then began the work of his most well known treatise, the protestant ethic. In 1918 Weber helped draft the constitution of the Weimarer Republik and died in 1920. Appelrouth, Scott, Desfor Edles, Laura, ''Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory'', pp. 140-142 =Contributions to Sociology= Weber's view of the science of sociology Weber defined sociology as a science that aimed at an ''interpretive understanding'' of social action that could provide causal explanations for both its course and its effects. With interpretive understanding as his principal objective, Weber differed from other sociologists that were postulating the existence of objective laws or social facts (Durkheim) that were governing the behavior of individuals. Rather than that, Weber focused on the subjective dimension of social life and the states of mind and motivations that guided the behavior of individuals. '''Social action''', any action that takes account of the behavior of others, attaches subjective meaning to this behavior and then orients the individual's behavior towards it. The action can be observable but also internal to the actor and it can involve active partaking or abstaining from an action. Sociologists have to focus on the meaning attached to a certain context by the individual and on the consequences this meaning has for their personal conduct. Weber furthermore distinguishes between four different types of social action # '''Instrumental-rational action''', directed towards the efficient pursuit of goals, involves calculating costs and benefits according to the means to achieve that goal # '''Value-rational action''', also involves the strategic selection of means to achieve a goal, however, here the action is the end in itself and not directed towards a higher goal # '''Affective action'', marked by impulsiveness and emotions, free from calculations # '''Traditional action''', undertaken out of habit or custom, provoked by an unreflected adherence to customs These categories are ''ideal types'', usually everyday social action is a mixture out of various of the different types. In Weber's frequent use of ideal types we find resonance of his conviction that analyses of the social world didn't necessarily have to be less scientific than those of the physical world. Weber was greatly indebted to another sociologists Heinrich Rickert who maintained that even though both natural and social sciences were using concepts, the great difference between them was that natural sciences used concepts to deductively establish universal laws and social sciences to inductively explain particular historical phenomena. Weber shared many of these views but he did believe that social sciences were also able to establish universal laws of a kind, but rather through the concepts of ''probability'' and ''elective affinity''. Of Nietzsche and Marx '''rationalization''', one of the major themes defining Weber's work. Describes a process by which social interaction and institutions become increasingly governed by methodical procedures and calculable rules. Weber believed that while such a scientific planning of interactions provided greater efficiency it also lead to processes and ultimately social interactions completely devoid of any meaning. Weber viewed scientific and technological progress cautiously mostly influenced by Nietzsche who had believed that modernity would bring the end of spiritualism and religion and thus lead humanity into a meaningless nihilistic void. However, Weber did not see the future of the world as deterministic, he rather saw that the search of humans for meaning in times of meaninglessness lead to the rise of charismatic leaders providing spiritual guidance. Weber, furthermore, extended and engaged with Marx's theory of historical materialism. He departed from Marx in three essential aspects # Social life is not evolving according to an immanent, necessary law # There is no single causal mechanism underlying the development of societies, Weber especially marked the negligence of the role that ''ideas'' played in Marx's theory. Weber regarded ideas as an independent cultural force not as a reflection of material conditions or the mode of production # Instead of capitalism, Weber saw rationalization and the increasing dominance of bureaucracies as the greatest danger to creativity and individuality of modernity. Following this strand of argumentation it becomes clear that Weber did not advocate socialism as an alternative system, because it did not promise to lighten the burden of bureaucratization. He rather favored capitalism because its competitiveness allowed for more individual freedom and creativity Appelrouth, Scott, Desfor Edles, Laura, ''Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory'', pp. 142-151 The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism 1904 The book addresses two of the topics at the very heart of Weber's sociological studies. # The rationalizing tendencies in Western societies # The role of ideas in these same societies Weber understood religious belief as a system of meaning with the aim of explaining suffering and evil in the world. Depending on what explanation is offered, behavior of individuals can differ radically. For the argument of this book it is especially important whether a system of belief advocates a spiritual escape from the world or mastery over it. Protestantism and Calvinism are especially representative of the latter which gave way to drastic social change after they had gained foot in Western Europe. As opposed to Marx who saw property relations as the main impetus of societal development, Weber argued that it was especially the ''attitude'' of European protestants that made Capitalism into such a powerful system. In the book Weber traces back the rise of Western individualism to the late 16th century and the Protestant Reformation which most importantly redefined the relationship between man and god. It substituted religious services performed by a few selected individuals for the masses into a perpetual glorification of god by every individual. John Clavin then later expanded this doctrine into a command to work for god's glory together with a crucial addition. While it was believed before that the individual could never know its own state of grace, i was now believed that riches and wealth in the here and now were indicators for a state of grace also in the afterlife. However, wealth would only serve as an indicator of salvation if it did not lead to idleness or enjoyment of luxuries. Furthermore, good accumulation of wealth was associated with rational and methodical planning. Thus, constraints on consumption were combined with a religious compulsion to constantly increase one's wealth. Appelrouth, Scott, Desfor Edles, Laura, ''Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory'', pp. 152-153 Class, Status, Party 1925 The book is again implicitly a debate with Marx who defined interests and the power to pursue them to be solely determined by class. Weber, on the other hand, argued that interests and power were connected to a variety of factors such as economics class, status groups and political parties. Most notable in this work is Weber's definition of power which is influential in sociology to this day. He defines it as "the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a social action even against the resistance of others". This power, however, does not arise from a single source and it can be used to achieve a variety of different objects. Furthermore, power achieved in one particular domain may be of no use in other domains. Weber's definition of '''classes''' also varies from Marx's. While Marx saw classes as relatively stable groups defined by their property relations to the means of production, Weber saw them as people sharing opportunities or 'life chances' that were determined by the economic interest in the possession of goods and income opportunities in the commodity and labor market. He agreed with Marx that property was the basic differentiating feature between classes, however, he saw classes as a product of the shared 'class-situation'. '''Status groups''', on the other hand, he regarded to be completely distinct from classes in the sense that they were communities, held together by a specific social conception of ''honor''. Certain styles of life or conventions identify people with their respective status groups while membership in the group also in a certain way constraints the individual's choice of social interaction. In the ''legal order'' then, '''parties''' reside in the seat of power. The definition of parties here not only includes strictly political parties but any form of rationally organized group. This leads to a definition of parties as groups pursuing a strategic goal with the maintenance of a staff capable of carrying out the implementation of the group's objectives. They do not have to be strictly tied to one single class' or status groups' interests but are rather aimed at generally influencing communal action in general. Appelrouth, Scott, Desfor Edles, Laura, ''Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory'', pp. 165-167 The Types of legitimate dominance In this piece, Weber distinguishes different ideal types of legitimate domination of which every normal political authority is a mixture. Weber defined '''legitimacy''' as the reasons which are usually publicly invoked by an authority to legitimate its power. Thus, he did not refer to actual individual motivations or reasons for obeying an authority, but the reasons the authority itself gives when reasoning why it should be obeyed by the public. He distinguished three different types of legitimate domination # '''Legal-rational authority''', is a domination based on the rule of law. This implies the belief that the laws in itself are legitimate as well as those elevated to authority under these laws and issuing commands under them. Obedience is, hence, not owed to the particular individual occupying a position but to the position as a legal institution as such. # '''Traditional authority''' is the legitimacy of authority based on an established belief in the sanctity of traditions. This applies especially to kings or tribal chieftains. Leadership under traditional authority is not attained based on merit but on heritage or certain rites. Obedience is owed not to rules but to a person as an embodiment of dominance and out of traditional loyalty. # '''Charismatic authority''' is based on certain personal character traits that the leader has, Weber calls these 'gifts of grace' which he demonstrates through certain acts of heroism or revelations. Like regarding traditional authority, loyalty is based on loyalty to the person occupying the position and not to certain rules, but the loyalty is not based on tradition. Loyalty to a charismatic leader is rather based on the fact that subjects of charismatic authorities are conceived to have a duty to recognize the genuine character of the authority and act according to that. Charismatic leadership is usually revolutionary in character, bringing about radical social change but at the same time inherently unstable. If deeds and benefits do not flow as promised loyalty will falter and if the leader dies usually conflicts of succession ensue. Appelrouth, Scott, Desfor Edles, Laura, ''Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory'', pp. 175-178 Bureaucracy 1925 In this essay Weber focuses on describing and outlining the ideal type of bureaucracy. Bureaucratic organization and a multitude of institutions have become essential to our modern life, especially as Weber emphasizes, due to their ''technical'' superiority over all other organizational forms. There are a number of features that ensure this superiority. # '''Hierarchy''', the authority is hierarchically structured which creates a clear chain of command # '''Selection''' of the personnel is merit based and highly competitive, resulting in a low likelihood of incompetence # The specialized '''division of labor''' in bureaucratic institutions allows for more efficiency # Such institutions are governed by formal and '''impersonal rules''' that regulate all facets of the organization However, Weber did not see this development as uniquely positive as bureaucracies tend to bring forth a new elite group made up of experts and technocrats. He was furthermore convinced that their impersonal rules would lead to a loss of freedom. The work in a bureaucratic institution would have a dehumanizing effect on the individuals working in such institutions, especially since the institution highly profits from such objectified individuals since they increase the working efficiency of the institution. Appelrouth, Scott, Desfor Edles, Laura, ''Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory'', pp. 184-186 =References